Florida Gov. Rick Scott is rejecting more than $2 billion in federal money to build a high-speed rail system between Orlando and Tampa.
“This project would be far too costly to taxpayers and I believe the risk far outweighs the benefits,” Scott said in a written statement (http://www.flgov.com/2011/02/16/florida-governor-rick-scott-rejects-federal-high-speed-rail/).
Scott joins two other Republican governors in rejecting federal funds for a bullet train.
Numerous business groups, including Associated Industries of Florida (http://www.bizjournals.com/profiles/us/fl/tallahassee/associated_industries_of_florida_inc/1008111/), supported the project.
“We were hoping the process could go forward with the private sector,” said Barney Bishop III, president and chief executive officer of Associated Industries. “The problem is that ridership numbers are always optimistic and construction numbers are minimized so it ends up costing more. The governor is not looking at any more liabilities for Florida taxpayers, and we understand where he’s coming from. Economically and fiscally, that has to be a superior reason to anything else.”
Scott’s decision is a real blow to the small business community, said Alison Hewitt, central Florida chapter president of the Conference of Minority Transportation Officials.
“This is very disappointing at a time when small businesses are doing everything they can to stay open and try to grow,” Hewitt said. High-speed rail “would have been a true trickle-down opportunity.”

It should probably read that the governor is rejecting "$2 billion in Bernanke funny money" because the country doesn't have any money other than what he freaking prints.

High-speed rail...WAFWAT!

We live in Cuba now.

BrianW

02-17-2011, 09:32 AM

Some items from Scott's written statement:
My decision to reject the project comes down to three main economic realities:o First – capital cost overruns from the project could put Florida taxpayers on the hook for an additional $3 billion.
o Second – ridership and revenue projections are historically overly-optimistic and would likely result in ongoing subsidies that state taxpayers would have to incur. (from $300 million – $575 million over 10 years) – Note: The state subsidizes Tri-Rail $34.6 million a year while passenger revenues covers only $10.4 million of the $64 million annual operating budget.
o Finally – if the project becomes too costly for taxpayers and is shut down, the state would have to return the $2.4 billion in federal funds to D.C.
Historical data shows capital cost overruns are pervasive in 9 out of 10 high speed rail projects and that 2/3 of those projects inflated ridership projections by an average of 65 percent of actual patronage.
It is projected that 3.07 million people will use the train annually. Keep in mind that Amtrak’s Acela train in Washington, D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, New York and Baltimore only had 3.2 million riders in 2010. And that market’s population is 8 times the size of the Tampa/Orlando market.So if the President's SoTU proposed $53 B HSR project is set up similar to this, which was part of the showcase, how much could that put the affected states on the hook for? It's one thing to propose a "moonshot/Manhattan Project" where the Feds paid for it, but this concurrent state obligation is the "dirty little secret" that somehow doesn't get mentioned in those lofty speeches.

I think state nullification is going to be an important tool in the future to oppose this federal octopus.